/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3607492]

What's your favorite philosopher /lit/? Why?

I like Schopenhauer, I like how he bridged eastern and western philosophy almost effortlessly and I've always been attracted by the power of his prose and his ability to capture the nature of human suffering. There's a strange cosmic and religious feel to his philosophy, and yet it fits well with naturalism and reason.
Just look at that handsome motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.3607499]

Not /lit/. Get out.

[Anonymous No.3607500]

Heidegger. I find his philosophy entirely compatible with my National Socialism.

[Anonymous No.3607501]

>>3607499

[Anonymous No.3607505]

Richard Feynman.

[Anonymous No.3607508]

>>3607499
>Philosophy.
>Not allowed in /lit/.

Stupid bastard. Get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.3607512]

>>3607508
Read his memoir last night. What a graceless dickwad.

[Anonymous No.3607514]

Probably Karl Popper.

[Anonymous No.3607519]

>>3607492

Diogenes if he counts.

If not then Thales for kickstarting the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.3607531]

>>3607519
why wouldn't he count? Diogenes was a true bro

[Anonymous No.3607532]

Diogenes was illiterate, and subsequently didn't (couldn't) write any books. Not exactly philosopher material.

[Anonymous No.3607537]

>>3607532
He also jerked off in public, which is just tacky no matter how you look at it.

[Anonymous No.3607543]

This is not a philosophy board. Keep it /lit/ related, kids, or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.3607546]

>>3607532
Meant for
>>3607519

[Anonymous No.3607555]

>>3607543
>>3607499
First day on the board?

[Anonymous No.3607557]

>>3607532
Diogenes' father was a banker and he worked with him as a young man, it is highly unlikely he was illiterate

[None !Rrxa7zePwI No.3607563]

wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.3607573]

>>3607555
>First day on the board.
Hello there, welcome to /lit/.

Unfortunately you will struggle to find a literature thread because the highschoolers like to drown the board in existential crisis, objective morality, spook, and nihilism threads. You just happen to have caught a philosopher popularity contest. Enjoy your search for a literature thread.

[edgy® No.3607577]

having a favorite philosopher is irrational

[Anonymous No.3607579]

>>3607577
why? i see no argument

[Anonymous No.3607581]

>>3607557
Oh wow, kiddo. Two points:
1. There were no "banks" back in Ancient Greece. Banking developed later, and was an entirely European concept.
2. Diogenes was illiterate. This explains why he became a wandering orator, and why we have no writings of his. He never wrote down a thing, unlike some of his more educated Greek contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.3607582]

>>3607532
socrates didn't write any books either.

However both put interesting ideas.

[Anonymous No.3607583]

>>3607573
philosophy is literature, literature =/= only fiction, hide the thread and move on if you don't like it chum

[edgy® No.3607585]

>>3607579
because it's counterintuitive

[Anonymous No.3607587]

What's your favourite shoe /lit/? Why?

I like stilettos, I like how they bridge conventional and elegant almost effortlessly and I've always been attracted by the the size of the heels and their ability to add inches to height. There's a strange cosmic and religious feel to these shoes, and yet it fits so well with cocktail dresses.

[Anonymous No.3607591]

>allowing favoritism to get in the way of objectively evaluating the work of the philosophers you have read

[Anonymous No.3607589]

>>3607499
>>3607573
Written philosophy is a form of literature, you dumb fucks. Not all literature is fiction.

[Anonymous No.3607592]

>>3607581
5 seconds on google

>Banking activities in Greece are more varied and sophisticated than in any previous society. Private entrepreneurs, as well as temples and public bodies, now undertake financial transactions. They take deposits, make loans, change money from one currency to another and test coins for weight and purity.

>They even engage in book transactions. Moneylenders can be found who will accept payment in one Greek city and arrange for credit in another, avoiding the need for the customer to transport or transfer large numbers of coins.

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ac19#ixzz2OyodInO0

[Anonymous No.3607593]

>>3607583
No, philosophy isn't literature.

[Anonymous No.3607597]

>>3607591
>objectively evaluating
>objective

oh wow

[Anonymous No.3607602]

>>3607589
Written thermal physics is a form of literature, you dumb fucks. Not all literature is fiction.

[Anonymous No.3607607]

>>3607593
noun
written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit:
a great work of literature
books and writings published on a particular subject:
the literature on environmental epidemiology
leaflets and other printed matter used to advertise products or give advice.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/literature


It uses work written on the science of epidemiology as an example of literature, so it stands to reason that philosophy is literature.

[Anonymous No.3607611]

>>3607602
Yes, yes it is. See>>3607607

[Anonymous No.3607614]

>>3607602
>>3607593
>>3607587

holy shit man, you really have an axe to grind don't you? kindly gtfo off /lit/ please, philosophy has been discussed here forever

[Anonymous No.3607618]

a lot of pretentious sophomoric crap posted in this thread. As you expect with lit I suppose.

Schopenhauer wrote beautiful German prose, was a generally very erudite guy...but, all that said, he's basically a second rate philosopher. Very indebted to Kant.

[Anonymous No.3607619]

>>3607607
So we can have a thread on shoes because there is a shoe book? >>3607587

[Anonymous No.3607628]

>>3607614
Kindly fuck off to /q/ and ask Moot for /phil/.

[Anonymous No.3607629]

>>3607619
No, because shoes are mostly just worn, while most philosophy is disseminated and learned through literature

[Anonymous No.3607630]

Diogenes' father was not a banker he was a coin maker, there's a huge difference people

[Anonymous No.3607635]

>>3607619
>strawman
Discussion of philosphy and discussion of shoes are two different things.
>inb4 arbitrarily asking "why?"
You'd be getting into a philosophical argument there buddy.

[edgy® No.3607638]

>>3607628
nah bro leave

>>3607587
i have this sick pair of janoskis

[Anonymous No.3607640]

>>3607630
not back then there wasn't, these people did various services including a primitive form of banking/moneylending

[Anonymous No.3607641]

>>3607614
>philosophy has been discussed here forever
No. No it hasn't. It is very rare for a philosophic issue to be explored in any depth. We get spammed with the same shit every day, and it's getting harder to find literature among it:

-Help I'm having an existential crisis.
-Who is your favorite philosopher /lit/?
-Is objectivism good?
-Do you believe in objective morality?
-Hey, how do I nihilism?
-Is egoism good?
-How do I into philosophy?
-Why Rand bad?
-Is art relative?
-Why can't I just kill people?
-How do I start Ubermunching?
-How do I know anything exists and this isn't the matrix?
-Can we ever have objective truth?
-Is aesthetic value completely subjective?
-Why Bert Camels like killing Arab?
-Is philosophy just linguistic games?

[Anonymous No.3607646]

>>3607640

Why didn't they just make buttloads of coins for themselves and grow rich?

[Anonymous No.3607647]

>>3607641
I have the solution for your problem

[Anonymous No.3607648]

>>3607641
Written philosophy is literature. There is distinction between the two. You can argue that not all philosophy is written, but then you can also argue that not all fiction is written. Does that mean that literary fiction can't be discussed?

[Anonymous No.3607653]

>>3607629
>No, because shoes are mostly just worn
Are you kidding?
There is so many works of literature that go into cobbling. There is graphic design, textiles, marketing, podiatry, sociology, psychology. Christ, can you really be this ignorant?

[edgy® No.3607655]

>>3607641
there have been plenty of good philosophy threads in the past. the reason /lit/ sucks is because good threads are gone and most of you are retarded

[Anonymous No.3607658]

>>3607646
because they lacked the metal to do so, besides it was a trade like blacksmith, the state payed you to mint coins for them, you didn't just mint money for yourself

[Anonymous No.3607660]

>>3607648
>Written philosophy is literature.
So are cookbooks.

-Help I'm having an existential crisis/ help I have burned the fajitas.
-Who is your favorite philosopher /lit// Who is your favorite chef.

This shit isn't.

[Anonymous No.3607665]

>>3607655
> the reason /lit/ sucks is because of idiots like this asshole and trolls/thread derailment

fixed that for you

[Anonymous No.3607674]

>>3607653
Can you really be this fucking pedantic? All (well, most) of those books are mealy instructional; the object itself is meant to be worn. Philosophy, on the other hand, is intended to be a conversation; a conversation had THROUGH literature.

[Anonymous No.3607675]

>>3607658
>>3607646
also Diogenes didnt give a shit about money.

[Anonymous No.3607677]

>>3607660
If a cookbook or a book about shoes can be considered a "great work of literature" then sure, it can be discussed here. Same goes for philosophy.
Making silly arguments may derail this thread but it won't stop the posting of philosophy on this board. Only mods can make that happen.

>tl;dr cry more

[Anonymous No.3607688]

>>3607677
This board isn't called 'great works of literature', if it was Hobbes, Rousseau, and Quine would be bannable.

The point is that philosophy killed this board, and needs it's own board.

[Anonymous No.3607689]

>>3607660
A proper analogy in this case would be "Who is your favorite chef writer, and why?"

Schopenhauer is known for his written work. Chefs are known for making food.

[Anonymous No.3607702]

I don't know if I can have a "favorite philosopher", however Nietzsche is definitely in the top ten.

[Anonymous No.3607714]

>>3607689
>Schopenhauer is known for his written work. Chefs are known for making food.
No, Shoppy is more known for his thoughts. The average person will have a vague notion of him as as the guy who misinterpreted Mahayana, rather than being able to mention a specific text. Most famous chefs, on the other hand, are either TV chefs who have best selling books, or Michelin star chefs with food theory and gastronomy texts.

[Anonymous No.3607720]

Philosophy is meta-literature.

[Anonymous No.3607724]

>>3607581
>Diogenes was illiterate. This explains why he became a wandering orator, and why we have no writings of his. He never wrote down a thing, unlike some of his more educated Greek contemporaries.

Lel, no. Direct quote from Diogenes Laertius about him tutoring his masters children:

"31. The boys used to get by heart many passages from poets, historians, and the writings of Diogenes himself; and he would practise them in every short cut to a good memory"

There are also anecdotes about students requesting his written works form him. Diogenes wasn't born a bum and was probably decently educated.

[Anonymous No.3607726]

The people who want to discuss philosophy can use the textboard.

[Anonymous No.3607741]

>>3607726
But we won't. You can't butthurt philosophy away from this board.

[Anonymous No.3607747]

>>3607741
/phil/ pls go.

[Anonymous No.3607754]

>>3607749
Like Jesus? Like the Buddha?

[Anonymous No.3607755]

>>3607581
>This explains why he became a wandering orator, and why we have no writings of his. He never wrote down a thing, unlike some of his more educated Greek contemporaries.
Like Socrates?

[Anonymous No.3607756]

>>3607754
>>3607755
Exactly, except Jesus and Buddha weren't his contemporaries to my knowledge.

[Anonymous No.3607760]

>>3607714
Can you be more pedantic please? Schopenhauer is known for his thoughts as expressed through the medium of literature. Just like /tv/ can (and does) discuss Gordon Ramsay, /lit/ can discuss Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.3607766]

this thread sure turned into a shithole fast

[Anonymous No.3607768]

>>3607760
Schopenhauer is also explicitly known for being a great stylist and is often read for his literary merit. People who think Arty isn't literature should evacuate the premises.

[Anonymous No.3607779]

>>3607760
>Schopenhauer is known for his thoughts as expressed through the medium of literature.
No, Shoppy is known for his thoughts. He recorded some of them in a written form, but there is no literary value – especially in translation.

>Just like /tv/ can (and does) discuss Gordon Ramsay, /lit/ can discuss Schopenhauer
Gorden Ramsay has published 21 books, which is more than Schopenhauer. If shoppy belongs on /lit/, so does Ramsay.

[Anonymous No.3607784]

>>3607779
>No, Shoppy is known for his thoughts.
Arguably so is everyone. Except of course we can't know the thoughts of others, so I'm not sure what you're really trying to say here.

[Anonymous No.3607785]

>this thread

goddammit /lit/

[Anonymous No.3607787]

>>3607779
that's excellent faggot if someone wants to talk about gordon ramsay they can

[Anonymous No.3607791]

>>3607787
inb4 the guy samefags one thread discussing Gordon's prose

[Anonymous No.3607796]

>>3607784
>Arguably so is everyone.
Sets up faulty premise.
>Except of course we can't know the thoughts of others,
Adds the strawman clause
>so I'm not sure what you're really trying to say here.
Attacks the strawman as if a point was refuted.

>/phil/

[Anonymous No.3607801]

>>3607787
What is 'excellent faggot if', Mr. No grammar?

[Anonymous No.3607809]

>>3607779
>but there is no literary value – especially in translation.
You're kidding, right? Schopenhauer, similar to Nietzsche and Voltaire, is specifically known for his style and literary ability. People who don't even study philosophy have read some of his work.

>Gorden Ramsay has published 21 books
But he's known for his television programs and his Michelin stars, not his cookbooks. We can discuss his books on /lit/, but not his cooking in general.

[Anonymous No.3607811]

>>3607791
Gordon's prose isn't anything compared to Jamie Oliver's.

[Anonymous No.3607814]

>>3607801
cry more phil is going to stay here

>>3607811
lel

[Anonymous No.3607817]

>>3607796
Look up the problem of other minds, it's lit 101 brah. Also, no strawmen to be had besides that post you just made. What else is Gordon Ramsay known for besides his thoughts?

[Anonymous No.3607827]

>>3607811
I prefer the lyricism of this guy right here.

[Anonymous No.3607828]

>>3607809
>But he's known for his television programs
Maybe in the UK, but in the rest of Europe he's a best selling author. Delia Smith is another who is equally well known as an author.

>We can discuss his books on /lit/, but not his cooking in general.
And we have no problem with discussing the prose style of philosophers, but having philosophy wallow out in the open leads to this: (>>3607641) and those threads, which make up the majority of philosophical discussion here, don't belong on a literature board.

[Anonymous No.3607833]

>>3607827
master race chef reporting in

[Anonymous No.3607836]

>>3607814
Why would you care about philosophy threads? You can't even form a sentence.

[Anonymous No.3607837]

>>3607828
>Maybe in the UK, but in the rest of Europe he's a best selling author.
I've seen Gordon Ramsay on TV in different parts of Europe more often than I've seen his books. Jamie Oliver is way more common cook book wise.

[Anonymous No.3607844]

>>3607837
>Gordon Ramsay

Dear Britbongs,

We have noticed a recent trend in your trash floating over the Atlantic: Simon Cowell, Gordon Ramsey, Cheryl Cole, Russell Brand, One Direction, Piers Morgan, Ricky Gervais... Please can you keep them locked up on your island. We don't want them.

Love and kisses, Murrica.

[Anonymous No.3607851]

>>3607844
>Love and kisses, Murrica.
No, they're not coming back. America is the new Australia.

[Anonymous No.3607858]

>>3607828
In philosophy, the written work is the thing in and of itself. In cooking, the written works are instructions, reading them are a means to an end.

[Anonymous No.3607891]

>thread begins with schopenhauer
>now about culinary books

yes, go on

[Anonymous No.3607913]

>>3607858
>In philosophy, the written work is the thing in and of itself.
You would think so judging by the bookshelf threads, but it's actually the ideas contained in those books. The philosophical idea can be grasped via Stanford entries, podcasts, forums, videos, books, lectures, wiki pages, conversation, and a range of other ways. With philosophy, the written work is secondary to the ideas expressed.

[Anonymous No.3607977]

>>3607779
>Schopenhauer
>no literary value

Remove yourself.

[Anonymous No.3607983]

>>3607913
>but it's actually the ideas contained in those books
Again, problem of other minds. You can only be given directions, the route from point a to point b, not the ideas themselves. This is something well established throughout philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3607990]

>>3607858
>In philosophy, the written work is the thing in and of itself. In cooking, the written works are instructions, reading them are a means to an end.

No, no, a thousand times no. Couldn't disagree more strongly. The important point is the truth or the ideas contained within the words. You could get them just as well - and I think in general better - from discussion. In other words, just like cooking, the words are a means to an end.

[Anonymous No.3607995]

>>3607913
Lel. With the expression the idea changes. There is no idea apart from the formulation.

"That dog is sick as hell yo" and "that's a beautiful dog" are different ideas. An idea can't be expressed in two ways, it then becomes two ideas.

[Anonymous No.3607997]

>>3607913
How those ideas are argued and presented can't be separated from the ideas themselves. Just because the ideas can be translated to other media doesn't mean that the original literary form of those ideas should be discarded. That would be like discarding fiction because the story, themes, characters, and central ideas can be expressed through film or theater.

[Anonymous No.3608016]

>>3607997
This. n any cases, what you guys are describing is philosophy through language, that is, more accurately, philosophy in language, or philosophy by language. Schopenhauer belongs to a philosophical tradition that was elaborated inside a linguistical famework, his philosophy was carved out of words, not taught by example to closely related and carefully selected disciples. You're making a confusion between expression and transmission. Wether you are listening to Schopenhauer read by a lecturer in a podcast or a video on youtube or are reading the original text yourself doesn't change the fact the idea comes from the text. Then there's the problem of reformulation, interpretation and simplification but it is again a matter of how you craft an idea through words. I'm not sure if one can really say written philosophy is literature but at the very least it is made of the same material than literature.

[Anonymous No.3608019]

Hannah Arendt.

Not the most historically influential philosopher, I know, but the one I read the most and appreciate the most and mentally got along with most.

[Anonymous No.3608023]

>>3607990
All literature is a means to an end if you define it broadly enough. You can also understand the plot and central ideal behind a work of fiction through discussion, does that mean we can't discuss literary fiction? Why should Schopenhauer's presentation be seen as separate and distinct from his ideas?

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3608086]

Max Stirner

[Anonymous No.3608089]

>>3608086
Why?

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3608102]

>>3608089
I like his ideas, writing style, attitude, influence, sense of humor, etc.
Mostly his ideas
He's great

Do you have a problem with Stirner?

[Anonymous No.3608113]

>>3608102
No, I like him a lot. I just find it problematic myself to point exactly to the magical part that makes him so great. Apart from total destruction of spooksville of course.

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3608143]

>>3608113
His destruction of everything illusory while not being whiny and moralistic like Schop or trying to fill the void with something like so many other philosophers with a nihilistic worldview is pretty much unparalleled. He reminds me of all the best parts of zen buddhism and the cynics, the whole freeing the mind of 'concepts' deal w/o all the selfless compassion garbage like in zen or the baggage that comes w/ classical cynicism. Plus he actually seems to respect the reader. You feel so clean and ideologically pure after reading Stirner, that might be my favorite part about him.

[Anonymous No.3608243]

>>3608086
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtwu4ZFdLxA

[Anonymous No.3608996]

>>3607581
>banking
>european concept
Banking existed in pretty much all high-cultures.


>diogenes
>illiterate
He was knowledgeable about many things in life and are very quick witted.

[Anonymous No.3609002]

>>3608996
>>diogenes
>>illiterate
>He was knowledgeable about many things in life and are very quick witted.

Do you not know what the word illiterate means? This is like saying ">Helen Keller >blind She actually could sing pretty good!

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.3609236]

>>3608243
GJ-bros strong

[Anonymous No.3609264]

>>3607724
using D.L. as if he were a completely faithful and reliable eye witness of anything happening in 5th century greece

nice

[Anonymous No.3609338]

Freeman Dyson

"There is no such thing as a unique scientific vision, any more than there is a unique poetic vision. Science is a mosaic of partial and conflicting visions. But there is one common element in these visions. The common element is rebellion against the restrictions imposed by the locally prevailing culture, Western or Eastern as the case may be. It is no more Western than it is Arab or Indian or Japanese or Chinese. Arabs and Indians and Japanese and Chinese had a big share in the development of modern science. And two thousand years earlier, the beginnings of science were as much Babylonian and Egyptian as Greek. One of the central facts about science is that it pays no attention to East and West and North and South and black and yellow and white. It belongs to everybody who is willing to make the effort to learn it. The progress of science requires the growth of understanding in both directions, downward from the whole to the parts and upward from the parts to the whole. A reductionist philosophy, arbitrarily proclaiming that the growth of understanding must go only in one direction, makes no scientific sense. Indeed, dogmatic philosophical beliefs of any kind have no place in science."